The joke was just "slapping martial arts". Asian stereotypes never needed to enter into that.
You can stereotype the fuck out of genres if you want, like kung-fu movies. Which I think is what you're getting at.
But the problem really is the they're not just making fun of concepts.
Talk Racism Issues And Be Nice About It
-
-
Well, that pretty much depends on the actual description they used in the series, doesn't it? The article said he was: "…trained by three kung fu masters in the art of the slap", which I think would in and of itself make it a pretty straightforward allusion to the Asian Kung Fu master stereotypes, but if they were only talking about masters without using that terminology then it's obviously thoughtless and accidentally racist.
Their intention clearly seems to have been making that allusion, though, judging by the make-up, the mustache, and the dresses. If it's racist, it's racist by accident, and hardly something to get very frustrated about. It's not like they meant to belittle anyone or anything.
-
@Toraish:
If it's racist, it's racist by accident, and hardly something to get very frustrated about. It's not like they meant to belittle anyone or anything.
Not even talking about this, but that statement in general is very off because there's no such thing as differentiating between "accidental racism" that "did not mean to". That's a clear misunderstanding of what race issues are?
But anyways, yellowface aside, I actually do think there is something very frustrating about kung fu in western TV. You have to understand, that makes up an absurd number of "Asian portrayal", whether it be in spirit like here or directly channeled with an asian actor. It cannot be undersold: kung fu movie shit played straight or jokingly are a real constant, incredibly outdated and tired, and yeah they are directly linked to orientalism which is hella problematic if you want to give it the thought it deserves. But it's something that seems incredibly minor so people won't care about it in general despite it being a real nuisance, but like right here specifically? Yeah this is basically looking yellowface and they were one bad accent away from it being full on 60s according to the descriptor. It's tiring when cultures get reduced to a costume time and time again.
@Nex:
Are some of these things racist and others not? Where is that line drawn, where are double standards formed?
Was debating actually answering each question one by one with indifference and instead I'm just going to leave it to your own devices to figure it out, because this is a really tiring thing and if you don't get racism now you won't if you perceive me as drawing wacky lines. If you spend a day reading you can figure it out. Make it an adventure.
Mostly saying this because it's boring when legit issues just become "explain this so the person of privilege can get it"
-
@Nex:
As for the second part, nothing else went down. There were no funny voices, no eye slanting, no yellow face, they were simply dressed up as characters from a Kung-Fu movie.
Are we looking at the same picture here? With the Asian style mustache, the Asian stereotype eyebrows, and hair that I know that guy damn well don't wake up with in the morning? I mean that is yellow face.
-
Sometimes I wish people could enjoy exaggerated fictional scenarios while also understanding that accepting these beliefs is being prejudiced.
I understand the idea behind social acceptance though, and I realize this probably isn't possible.
-
@Holy:
Not even talking about this, but that statement in general is very off because there's no such thing as differentiating between "accidental racism" that "did not mean to". That's a clear misunderstanding of what race issues are?
I don't know that you – or either of us, for that matter -- will really care to get into this, but frankly, I find it kind of frustrating when people say that there's no difference between these things, because there very much is. I'm not trying to claim that 'accidental racism' (which is an admittedly rather silly phrase) is not in itself a problem, or that it should be taken as any sort of excuse, but claiming that there is no distinction whatsoever between someone being willfully bigoted, and someone being unintentionally racist out of ignorance, is completely absurd to me.
Also, if it's not clear, I'm speaking in general here; I know absolutely nothing about this current example being discussed, and am not trying to make any comment on it one way or another.
-
@Holy:
Not even talking about this, but that statement in general is very off because there's no such thing as differentiating between "accidental racism" that "did not mean to". That's a clear misunderstanding of what race issues are?
Sorry, I'm going to drag you into this. Partly because I'm actually interested, partly because I kind of feel like your stance, if I'm reading you right, is something that honestly just sets unfair requirements on people and doesn't actually help in any way to solve the actual problems behind racism. In fact, it leaves them completely open. If you won't go into why something specific is racist and just say that it is while scolding all the others in the room for being racist, you're at most going to silence any racist remarks those people might make for a short while. It's still likely to return, either with new people or with the same people after they forget your outburst or muster up enough courage to confront you for not having been friendly to them, regardless of the original intention.
I totally get how you have to feel constantly annoyed by racial stereotypes and blatant racism in a way that I can't relate to at all, but what's the point of it if nothing gets done. As far as I can see, race issues really stem from people not knowing enough about the other races and cultures to understand how they work. It's not because people are dicks, it's because people don't know not to be dicks. Whenever someone tries to represent something from another culture without capturing the full context, it belittles them and their culture by misrepresenting them and maybe even by mocking them if that's the intention, and that creates tension. Some people even go as far as to make their own ignorant assumptions into facts that they start spewing around hurtfully, and defend their inner machinations with crazed fervor whenever confronted about them. That pretty much racism in a nutshell. Poorly worded, but still.
But generally speaking, people don't know all that much about different cultures outside of their own lives, so it's unfair to make the assumption that everyone would know why something is wrong. That's what I mean by accidental racism. Intentional mocking is something that should never be tolerated under any circumstances, but when somebody does something that is racist without knowing that it might be bad or why it is bad, the blame isn't on them. Their only crime is that they didn't know. And if someone doesn't know, the last thing you can do is to tell them off for not knowing. Tha'ts completely unreasonable. At least from my point of view. What needs to be done is to inform people of why something is not correct and why spreading that kind of an image is offensive. People only change through understanding.
Do point out where I am wrong if you think that. It might be a simplistic view. But don't call in the fire brigade every time you see smoke because that smoke might be coming from a smoke machine on the gig that you're on.
But anyways, yellowface aside, I actually do think there is something very frustrating about kung fu in western TV. You have to understand, that makes up an absurd number of "Asian portrayal", whether it be in spirit like here or directly channeled with an asian actor. It cannot be undersold: kung fu movie shit played straight or jokingly are a real constant, incredibly outdated and tired, and yeah they are directly linked to orientalism which is hella problematic if you want to give it the thought it deserves. But it's something that seems incredibly minor so people won't care about it in general despite it being a real nuisance, but like right here specifically? Yeah this is basically looking yellowface and they were one bad accent away from it being full on 60s according to the descriptor. It's tiring when cultures get reduced to a costume time and time again
The thing with this, though, is that, as annoying as the Kung Fu stuff probably gets in the eyes of someone who knows that the places those things are said to come from are really so much more, you can't really expect much more from people who have very little knowledge of those cultural regions outside of the most common stereotypes that they like to use a lot because they're so easy. The oversaturation is bullshit in terms of giving the public a sense of what the "Far East Asian" culture is like, I definitely agree, but it's the unfortunate result of a lack of knowledge and effort to get more of that knowledge. Lazy scriptwriting is something I've never been a fan of for that very reason.
But in separation, no single Kung Fu mention is racist because of their status as the one thing that worse Hollywood writers know about China. They can be racist because of the execution - most of them definitely are - and they can be directly linked to Orientalism if that's the link that they're trying to make. Orientalism was all about "look, this is Asian; Asia is like this" and the perverse exotism that was associated with it. But if something is not making that connection at all, like this HIMYM episode certainly wasn't with its comedy reference to well-known stereotypes and nothing more, I don't think it's fair to slap that label on it. As I said, this does not look like a case of reducing Asian-ness to a costume; this looks like an attempt of impressing the audience with an allusion to Chinese martial arts masters who famously spent a lot of time honing their arts like almost no one else.
It's yellowface, yeah, because it's a white guy playing an "Asian" character. But if the "Asian-ness" of the character is just one trait amongst others and isn't trying to convince you of "the whole culture being a certain way", what's wrong with it?
-
I am on a phone
@Panda:
I don't know that you – or either of us, for that matter -- will really care to get into this, but frankly, I find it kind of frustrating when people say that there's no difference between these things, because there very much is. I'm not trying to claim that 'accidental racism' (which is an admittedly rather silly phrase) is not in itself a problem, or that it should be taken as any sort of excuse, but claiming that there is no distinction whatsoever between someone being willfully bigoted, and someone being unintentionally racist out of ignorance, is completely absurd to me.
Also, if it's not clear, I'm speaking in general here; I know absolutely nothing about this current example being discussed, and am not trying to make any comment on it one way or another.
No, you misunderstand.
When discussing race issues, the subject of it as a structure is always vitally inportant to acknowledge. Whether someone is "accidental" or not isn't really part of the discussion. We know the KKK exists. They are not the important cultural dissection. The willful bigotry angle is not one anyone talks about and also gets very blurred in the first place when you get practical? Like when someone slants their eyes and goes FA RA RA and didn't mean to insult? It is not important if they did no intend to be a big insulting jackass. It's still gonna be talked about.
Like be practical. Intent is a thing that exists, yes, and if you want to muddle a discussion with it it is more than anything a derail on issues. That is what I am saying. The reality is "well it was an accident" is only ever used to try to tell people to stop talking. In these contexts it feels like a silencing technique. End of story
I am on my phone and have not reaf Dryish's post.
-
If you are talking with ordinary people, and not academics or activists then intent is going to come to the forefront.
Because to most people being called racist is hugely loaded, it's pretty much you saying that they genuinly hate other races.
Structures over individuals is like the biggest language barrier there is. You are shouting about apples and they are shouting about pears.
-
-
If you are talking with ordinary people, and not academics or activists then intent is going to come to the forefront.
Because to most people being called racist is hugely loaded, it's pretty much you saying that they genuinly hate other races.
Structures over individuals is like the biggest language barrier there is. You are shouting about apples and they are shouting about pears.
Well, people not realising they are part of structure and work to support it is a problem.
-
Well, people not realising they are part of structure and work to support it is a problem.
A problem that's probably not going to be solved by academical people shouting at them in a language they don't understand.
I can hardly imagine anything more pointless than two people arguing about a thing, that there isn't an agreed definition of.
Like it or not, if you want it to take root you will probably have to deal with people on their level. Sure beats shouting vainly into the wind.
-
The phrase "Intent isn't Magic" appears a lot in the progressive community. It's basically that even if you didn't mean to be discriminatory, that doesn't change the fact that you have been discriminatory. I understand that intent is a pretty complicated topic, and that's a bit of a simplification, but it does make a very valid point.
As Holy said, you otherwise risk prioritising the feelings of the privileged over those who lack that privilege.
-
This has nothing to do with anything but i loled massively at the part where she mentioned being called a cunt as something offensive.
Damn Brits have ruined my cultural sensitivities on that one
-
This has nothing to do with anything but i loled massively at the part where she mentioned being called a cunt as something offensive.
Damn Brits have ruined my cultural sensitivities on that one
We tend to have to learn to be careful with that one online XD
-
A problem that's probably not going to be solved by academical people shouting at them in a language they don't understand.
I can hardly imagine anything more pointless than two people arguing about a thing, that there isn't an agreed definition of.
Like it or not, if you want it to take root you will probably have to deal with people on their level. Sure beats shouting vainly into the wind.
I don't know what Holy does outside of this forum, but here she gave down to merit answer to Panda and Dryish. No shouting. I'm sure that Panda and Dryish are able to understand what she said and language she used.
There are always few levels of doing this stuff, one is academical - dedicated to understanding the problem, the second is activism - dedicating fight the problem in society, those levels interfere and mix from time to time. This discussion is more academical. -
I don't know what Holy does outside of this forum, but here she gave down to merit answer to Panda and Dryish. No shouting. I'm sure that Panda and Dryish are able to understand what she said and language she used.
I'd imagine that neither Panda nor Dryish are representative of anything else than intellectuals.
I was speaking more generally, since the subject matter concerns people who aren't aware or understanding of what they are doing.
What's more important then i ask myself, that the academical community gets it? Or that people in general get it?
There are always few levels of doing this stuff, one is academical - dedicated to understanding the problem, the second is activism - dedicating fight the problem in society, those levels interfere and mix from time to time. This discussion is more academical.
Seems silly to have a disconnect betwenn the thinking and the application.
To me it'd seem more effective to tie the both together
-
I'd imagine that neither Panda nor Dryish are representative of anything else than intellectuals.
I was speaking more generally, since the subject matter concerns people who aren't aware or understanding of what they are doing.
What's more important then i ask myself, that the academical community gets it? Or that people in general get it?
Seems silly to have a disconnect betwenn the thinking and the application.
To me it'd seem more effective to tie the both together
It's usually that academics get the idea first than general public. This how it works. It would be great if people could get idea instantly, but that's not what is happening.
It's normal to have theory and practice to separate to certain degree. When you build the house you have architect, who designs the building, engineers who supervise work and physical workers, who build the house. There are different roles in society as one person cannot do all needed tasks. Those roles require different manner of preparation and individual predispositions.
but that's besides point of discussion.
-
It's usually that academics get the idea first than general public. This how it works. It would be great if people could get idea instantly, but that's not what is happening.
Which is fine. But it gets weird when people get chastised for not understanding something which apparently isn't knowledge that's readily avalible to be transfered to and understood by the people who need to understand it. Hence it gets a bit like shouting at someone in a foreign language.
-
Which is fine. But it gets weird when people get chastised for not understanding something which apparently isn't knowledge that's readily avalible to be transfered to and understood by the people who need to understand it. Hence it gets a bit like shouting at someone in a foreign language.
that's not exactly the problem, this knowledge can be translated, but those people who need to understand don't really won't to as would required some time and energy, and besides they feel comfortable with their worldview and do not won't it shuttered. So the people, who want them to know start to shout in frustration.
-
Guys racism is over go home don't you know that we're living in Obama's America
-
that's not exactly the problem, this knowledge can be translated, but those people who need to understand don't really won't to as would required some time and energy, and besides they feel comfortable with their worldview and do not won't it shuttered. So the people, who want them to know start to shout in frustration.
To me it feels a little to easy to say that oh the other side doesn't want to learn. I feel it's a bit like teaching, if your student doesn't get it in the one and only way you are able to teach it, that doesn't make him a bad student, it makes you are sub-par teacher. If one approach doesn't work shouldn't the obvious thing to consider doing be trying other approaches?
-
Is No Maam's new avatar racist?
-
Yes; but it is it intended to be racist? Because I think the whole issue here really should rely on 'intent' alone.
Also if we had the same stereotyped image of another race, do you think it would be treated differently? I think we have different standards for different people simply because of the different levels of hardship each one faced.
But hey…we even have stereotypes for each country/region. Like where do we draw the line? And sadly some of those stereotypes are what put people on the tourist map. Ie meaning they have to rely on the image to a certain degree.
sadly when it comes to art, it's genuinely hard to decipher where people are from, which means we have to resort to implementing a stereotypical image to put fourth the image we want to portray. Imagine how hard it would be to suss who is who when reading a comic about several European characters, if they didn't have some kind of physical or verbal distinction.
If the image or portrayal has no intent of being malicious, then it shouldn't be an issue. The main issue stems more from people being ignorant of what is and what isn't acceptable.....which is even more of bastard to define, as everyone has their own interpretation.
The only way we will ever stop friction occurring over this debate, is to completely remove any image that depicts or defines anyone. And that in my eyes is political correctness gone too far.
-
sadly when it comes to art, it's genuinely hard to decipher where people are from, which means we have to resort to implementing a stereotypical image to put fourth the image we want to portray. Imagine how hard it would be to suss who is who when reading a comic about several European characters, if they didn't have some kind of physical or verbal distinction.
Well I think that most people have some kind of physical or verbal distinction, even if they are of the same race!
At least that's what I learned growing up in the Me Me Me Generation, everyone is special in their own way.But if you REALLY want to go the mile and test the limits of societal understanding,
you might want to give them differing personalities and life experiences? But IMO that's taking it a little far. -
I know I'm going to regret this
Yes; but it is it intended to be racist? Because I think the whole issue here really should rely on 'intent' alone.
Couldn't disagree more. As Holy explained, "intent" is a pseudo-strawman that evokes images of the KKK, Nazis, stormfront, and other undeniably wicked people. People think of those and say "Golly gee! Now those guys are racist! Look at them! Look at their intent! There's none of that in my life or my crappy sitcoms!"
Those overt bigots are not an interesting part of the academic discussion, because they are so relatively unrelateable (I know you argued against that point before, Wolfy, so sorry about this ;P). Of course the writers/producers at CBS aren't cackling KKK members, rubbing their hands together and spending their coffee breaks talking about how they hate Orientals so much so let's write a scene that'll make them cry and disparage what we can only imagine is their heritage. That would be "intent," but that's completely absurd.This theme actually came up in another topic (the women one, probably?) and we all had a similar exchange for a while, but I'm still going to assert the same thing: subtle, deeply-ingrained, media-driven racism/bigotry on a societal level is the one really worth talking about. Not the blackfaced boogeyman. The KKK doesn't impact most people's daily lives. Skewed hiring and incarceration rates do, as well as the quasi-subliminal messaging in all our TV shows, movies, and commercials. And that kind is decidedly not driven by "intent." That's what makes it so insidious. That's the point. It's systemic, and it's very very hard to even get people to recognize, admit, and start really talking about it (which of course requires breaking down that initial defensive wall when someone feels that they are being accused of being a bad person, which is not what's happening).
It makes it so that those producers in the CBS writers' room only have to give a slight pause before deciding to go ahead with such a ridiculous scene. They're not stupid. Millions of dollars of advertising relies on their decisions and the quality of what they put out, so you can bet that it was a very calculated decision. They judged that this would get the requisite laughs out of their esteemed audience without causing a media firestorm, except of course on sites like Jezebel and certain AP forums topics. They knew that what is undeniably yellowface wouldn't lose them advertisers precisely because nobody would look at that and claim "intentional" racism. Why the double standard (as compared to blackface)? Definitely something to do with the historical roles/positions of the respective "races" throughout modern history. But I feel pretty confident saying that people 50 years from now would view this episode of HIMYM as we, today, view blackface. The last century tells us that there's no reason to think that that kind of progress won't occur.
In terms of the "well the average person isn't defining racism the same way" argument, I just have to shrug my shoulders. Yelling at someone in a foreign language is one thing. Defining your terms clearly and explaining what you mean is something else entirely. We're discussing this pretty calmly; not having a shouting match with randos on soapboxes in Union Square. And I don't consider you guys average people ;)
If you want to say "well by the average definition of racism, this isn't racist. It only is by your stricter definition" well… I don't know what that really accomplishes. The average definition is skewed by the systemic racism itself, which is kind of the point. If the semantics bothers you, then we can always just bypass that apparently major issue and say "Is this scene problematic, and why or why not?" Problem solved.
@Smudger:The only way we will ever stop friction occurring over this debate, is to completely remove any image that depicts or defines anyone. And that in my eyes is political correctness gone too far.
There's a lot of gray room between making, for instance, a French character in the hypothetical Gang of Europeans comic say "zee" instead of "the," vs. making him a beret-wearing pencil-moustached frog-eater. Surely you can see how the former merely "informs" (if the exposition didn't happen tell us he was French in a more subtle way, like an airplane ticket or a flag sticker on his suitcase or something) while the latter is a wholly offensive stereotype that reduces an entire culture down to a few visual gags.
-
@CCC:
I know I'm going to regret this
I realize that it might be trite and bothersome for you guys to reiterate stuff you've talked about inbetwenn yourself time and time again, stuff you probably feel should be obvious and second nature but y'know what here is me, i am at this level, and if you want to reach me, and convince me, then talking over my head isn't going to do that.
As much as it may seem like it i'm not trying to work against you, i just feel that you tend to work against yourself in this whole oh well the door was locked by ehm casual bigotry or what not that's that then, if the door is locked try the window, maybe there's a chimney. I mean you've got the spirit of the time behind you so there is no real reason for you to stop trying to do better each time. Me saying your words do fall on deaf ears isn't me saying stop saying them, it's atleast meant to be me saying maybe there's a better or more efficient way to get your points across.
Couldn't disagree more. As Holy explained, "intent" is a pseudo-strawman that evokes images of the KKK, Nazis, stormfront, and other undeniably wicked people. People think of those and say "Golly gee! Now those guys are racist! Look at them! Look at their intent! There's none of that in my life or my crappy sitcoms!"
Those overt bigots are not an interesting part of the academic discussion, because they are in such an unrelateable minority (I know you argued against that point before, Wolfy). Of course the writers/producers at CBS aren't cackling KKK members, rubbing their hands together and spending their coffee breaks talking about how they hate Orientals so much so let's write a scene that'll make them cry. That would be "intent," but that's completely absurd.This theme actually came up in another topic (the women one, probably?) and we all had a similar exchange for a while, but I'm still going to assert the same thing: subtle, deeply-ingrained, media-driven racism/bigotry on a societal level is the one really worth talking about. Not the blackfaced boogeyman. The KKK doesn't impact most people's daily lives. Skewed hiring and incarceration rates do, as well as the quasi-subliminal messaging in all our TV shows, movies, and commercials. And that kind is decidedly not driven by "intent." That's what makes it so insidious. That's the point. It's systemic, and it's very very hard to even get people to recognize, admit, and start really talking about it (which of course requires breaking down that initial defensive wall when someone feels that they are being accused of being a bad person, which is not what's happening).
It makes it so that those producers in the CBS writers' room only have to give a slight pause before deciding to go ahead with such a ridiculous scene. They're not stupid. Millions of dollars of advertising relies on their decisions and the quality of what they put out, so you can bet that it was a very calculated decision. They judged that this would get the requisite laughs out of their chucklehead audience without causing a media firestorm, except of course on sites like Jezebel and certain AP forums topics. They knew that what is undeniably yellowface wouldn't lose them advertisers precisely because nobody would look at that and claim "intentional" racism. Why the double standard (as compared to blackface)? Definitely something to do with the historical roles/positions of the respective "races" throughout modern history. But I feel pretty confident saying that people 50 years from now would view this episode of HIMYM as we, today, view blackface. The last century tells us that there's no reason to think that that kind of progress won't occur.
I'll be honest i haven't really spent much more than a second at that episode before going on a more general tangent.
I dunno, discussing specific events just seems kind of pointless. I mean they work for illustration but dissecting it seems kind of useless.
Anything i've said on these last few pages haven't been about AP, How i met your mother or anyone in particular.
It's just the mundane, things people probably have already thought about a billion time stuff that i thought i'd vent for my own sake.
In terms of the "well the average person isn't defining racism the same way" argument, I just have to shrug my shoulders. Yelling at someone in a foreign language is one thing. Defining your terms clearly and explaining what you mean is something else entirely. We're discussing this pretty calmly; not shouting from soapboxes in Union Square. And I don't consider you guys average people ;)
If you want to say "well by the average definition of racism, this isn't racist. It only is by your stricter definition" well… I don't know what that really accomplishes. The average definition is skewed by the systemic racism itself, which is kind of the point.
I'm not even laying any value to either side. I'm just saying that it's taken as an apples and pears type of thing peoples ears.
For that matter i'd dispute that the terms are rarely well-defined, since most are published in an enviroment where it's assumed that you are coming in the with some start up knowledge already in hand. This is of course once again not about the most esteemed AP general discussion junta lol, but rather my experiences as a whole.
-
-
For that matter i'd dispute that the terms are rarely well-defined, since most are published in an enviroment where it's assumed that you are coming in the with some start up knowledge already in hand. This is of course once again not about the most esteemed AP general discussion junta lol, but rather my experiences as a whole.
Of course, I don't disagree with that. I know that much of what we're saying here obviously would fall on deaf ears in the real world. But this is an AP GD junta so why not go wild? Not because I'm reducing the world to an AP microcosm but because this is a relatively safe space to speak our minds. I mean, I tend to go wild in the real world too, deaf ears and all, which is, as you might expect, a terribly draining endeavor. C'est la vie.
-
@CCC:
Of course, I don't disagree with that. I know that much of what we're saying here obviously would fall on deaf ears in the real world. But this is an AP GD junta so why not go wild? Not because I'm reducing the world to an AP microcosm but because this is a relatively safe space to speak our minds. I mean, I tend to go wild in the real world too, deaf ears and all, which is, as you might expect, a terribly draining endeavor. C'est la vie.
Unless i'm here scratching my thick fur by going against the grain.
It doesn't hurt but it's like that stop tickling me during finals week you stupid pet
Nah but i suppose you are right. Maybe i shouldn't be bothering people who just want to discuss it on their own terms.
-
-
@CCC:
I know I'm going to regret this
Everyone else is laughing to themselves; while thinking "oh dear lord, did he really just try and embrace smudger on the topic of racism?". lol
Couldn't disagree more. As Holy explained, "intent" is a pseudo-strawman that evokes images of the KKK, Nazis, stormfront, and other undeniably wicked people. People think of those and say "Golly gee! Now those guys are racist! Look at them! Look at their intent! There's none of that in my life or my crappy sitcoms!"
Then explain why the intent of racially sensitive words have become something accepted so widely worldwide? This ties in to the whole "nigga' debate. Which in my eyes parallels the same route or answer to follow. ie it revolving around the intent of its use, with people having the option to say freely that "hey im not comfortable with that word" or "i think its racist, please don't do that around me".
Those overt bigots are not an interesting part of the academic discussion, because they are in such an unrelateable minority (I know you argued against that point before, Wolfy). Of course the writers/producers at CBS aren't cackling KKK members, rubbing their hands together and spending their coffee breaks talking about how they hate Orientals so much so let's write a scene that'll make them cry. That would be "intent," but that's completely absurd.
I don't really want to divert or expand on this subject by using the polar opposites of this topics main audience.
This theme actually came up in another topic (the women one, probably?) and we all had a similar exchange for a while, but I'm still going to assert the same thing: subtle, deeply-ingrained, media-driven racism/bigotry on a societal level is the one really worth talking about. Not the blackfaced boogeyman. The KKK doesn't impact most people's daily lives. Skewed hiring and incarceration rates do, as well as the quasi-subliminal messaging in all our TV shows, movies, and commercials. And that kind is decidedly not driven by "intent." That's what makes it so insidious. That's the point. It's systemic, and it's very very hard to even get people to recognize, admit, and start really talking about it (which of course requires breaking down that initial defensive wall when someone feels that they are being accused of being a bad person, which is not what's happening).
While I agree that in some forms within the media, it can be poisonous; its largely something that doesn't effect everyone, or to the negative degree that it used to. But this is just my understanding/experience from where I've lived. Admittedly some places in the US, Asia or otherwise…might feel a stronger degree of results hailing from this negative and subtle racism/bigotry.
But doesn't this in itself become redundant if we all share a portion of the stereotyping going on?
It makes it so that those producers in the CBS writers' room only have to give a slight pause before deciding to go ahead with such a ridiculous scene. They're not stupid. Millions of dollars of advertising relies on their decisions and the quality of what they put out, so you can bet that it was a very calculated decision. They judged that this would get the requisite laughs out of their chucklehead audience without causing a media firestorm, except of course on sites like Jezebel and certain AP forums topics. They knew that what is undeniably yellowface wouldn't lose them advertisers precisely because nobody would look at that and claim "intentional" racism.
A good example of double standards as I mention, which is heavily reliant on each respective races history. But we are reaching a point where its almost time to bury that in the past. We have learnt from it, and need to come to a point where it won't dictate our future any more. But lets not get into that side of the topic. I just want to point out that we are becoming less and less influenced by our past due to this new era of open media and socializing on a global scale. Like right now is a debate between an English guy in Australia, and an American guy in Japan. The growing levels of multiculturalism and education, are helping to break down the tensions created from our past. Its great.
Why the double standard (as compared to blackface)? Definitely something to do with the historical roles/positions of the respective "races" throughout modern history. But I feel pretty confident saying that people 50 years from now would view this episode of HIMYM as we, today, view blackface. There's no reason to think that that kind of progress won't occur.
The double standard is applied to everyone though. My only real gripe is just the fact that it is so overly complicated.
And just for Holy, here is a errr…a terrible example.
!
In terms of the "well the average person isn't defining racism the same way" argument, I just have to shrug my shoulders. Yelling at someone in a foreign language is one thing. Defining your terms clearly and explaining what you mean is something else entirely. We're discussing this pretty calmly; not shouting from soapboxes in Union Square. And I don't consider you guys average people ;)
I don't just mean that in regards to the people using possible racially insensitive words, but the audience that hear them, and how they interpreted it. This basically means that somewhere out there is someone that will take issue with something you might view as being acceptable.
If you want to say "well by the average definition of racism, this isn't racist. It only is by your stricter definition" well… I don't know what that really accomplishes. The average definition is skewed by the systemic racism itself, which is kind of the point.
It doesn't accomplish much, but at least differs it from the more vile side of the racism chart.
Your viewpoint sounds like its along the lines of "racism is racism, and just as bad no matter on what level it is produced". Which in my eyes is like me calling someone an 'idiot', or calling them a 'cunt'. Two completely different levels of intent that should be treated differently…..otherwise you have a blanket view on the subject.
There's a lot of gray room between making, for instance, a French character say "zee" instead of "the," vs. making him a beret-wearing pencil-moustached frog-eater. Surely you can see how the former merely "informs" (if the exposition didn't tell us he was French) while the latter is a wholly offensive stereotype that simplifies an entire culture down to a few visual gags.
Your example doesn't cover a non-stereotypical way of portraying ones nationality/image. I feel like your answer is pretty heavily reliant on language alone, which in itself is a flawed answer when you consider how many holes it can have.
But hey, who's to say that someone down the line won't be offended at the 'zee' example you gave. As time goes on the whole subject is becoming narrower, and more anal.
I understand what you mean on the whole. But I can't really ignore that racism does have varying levels, and can be perceived or received differently by different people.
Thanks for the response though. Its given me a better insight into this side of the debate.
-
I feel I have to weigh in with Wolf here in regards to the entire issue of groups talking past each other on this. Speaking personally, when I hear the term 'racism', the first thing I think of is conscious, bigoted bias based on race. Frankly, I very, very, very much doubt that I am in any sort of minority when it comes to that stance. That's not to say I don't understand the concept of institutionalized racism; I understand what it is, and what a large issue it is, and that it, frankly, has next to nothing to do with what I think of as racism. That, I think, is a large part of the problem in and of itself, as I believe Wolf has been alluding to.
Things are all very well and good in the circles that regularly talk about these things, where mention of 'racism' is simply understood to mean the institutional sort. Consider discourse with some given average person, however – that shares my default meaning of the term, and without even the benefit of knowing about the alternative interpretation -- and statements such as that intent don't matter come across as practically paradoxical. To echo Wolf, again, it's not a matter of casting any sort of judgement on either side, but rather an observation that talking past each other achieves nothing.
-
At the risk of coming off as ignorant as I am, I'll throw my hat into this.
I don't know if I can agree with intent making no difference. It makes a difference in just what kind of discussion you need to have. In one sense, the 'intent' card unfairly evokes images of harsher hate groups, which draws attention away from the real problem, but on the flipside, withholding the card equates the extremes of the spectrum, which is no better. Maybe even worse. It just polarizes the issue further, leading to more sensationalization and overreaction. I think the end result of that kind of thinking is nothing but the tables turning. When hate fights hate, hate wins.
All sensationalization is doing in this case is making us pay attention to the media. It all kind of smacks of those old ladies from a couple decades ago that would stay up at all hours watching the television, jotting down notes for the FCC and their local congressmen on which programs are corrupting the youth. Not that the cause isn't more just, but the ways we go about it are just as petty and the only real winners are the news groups that get the story first.
Feel free to knock some sense into me where I need, but that's my current stance.
-
I don't really want to divert or expand on this subject by using the polar opposites of this topics main audience.
While I agree that in some forms within the media, it can be poisonous; its largely something that doesn't effect everyone, or to the negative degree that it used to. But this is just my understanding/experience from where I've lived. Admittedly some places in the US, Asia or otherwise…might feel a stronger degree of results hailing from this negative and subtle racism/bigotry.There's pretty much zero reason to think the UK and especially Australia would be different than the US on this. Let alone Japan.
-
These are my thoughts on the discussion throughout the day without responding to anyone in particular.
Note: this post is mainly dealing with racism and "intent" in the confines of literature (which I am very loosely going to define to include television and film in this context.)
Double Note: this will probably be kind of rambly. I don't have time to edit!
I don't think intent can be dismissed as a "psuedo-strawman." Look at the hands down most racist show on television: South Park. Their portrayal of everyone, especially the Japanese is light years beyond anything that HIMYM did in their most recent episode, yet no one says a word. People are constantly demanding Matt or Trey apologize (which they wouldn't,) they're not protesting the show, no, they're laughing with it. Why? Because they know the intent is to satirize racism in such a way that lambastes it. Week in and week out no one has any issues, because they have a clearly not being derogatory. Or, like with Good Times with Weapons, it's a fun homage to something they find funny or like.
Which of course raises the question: is what they do still racist? If it is, what separates it from the same judgement that How I Met Your Mother is going through?
Looking at it academically, when thinking critically about a work of literature one of the thing's you have to ruminate on is the speaker's (or speakers') purpose. Or their intent. What were they trying to do with this piece of literature?
Let's examine Huckleberry Finn for a moment, to look at a classic piece of literature. One which has definitely been decried as racist in the general community to the point where censored editions exist, but defended in the academic community for Twain's intent in writing the novel. You won't find a well-read academic decrying the novel as racist. Instead you'll find said academic with an argument along the lines of "Twain's intent with the novel was to tell a cautionary tale about racism in America, two decades out of the Civil War, as the country slipped back in the racial degradation that pre-dated the Civil War." Thus it was not Twain's intent to be derogatory, but to teach.
As a counterpoint, turn to the works of H.P. Lovecraft, a man widely known to be sexist and racist. When examining his books and stories, the portrayals of his black and women characters are accepted to be racist, because Lovecraft never had any other purpose. The characters existed solely to be caricatures.
The difference between these two examples demonstrates a rather standard academic examination of text, which I'm sure none of you needed explained, but I did it anyway to better enforce why I think intent is so important, at the very least when it comes to looking at works of literature and art.
Going back to South Park, an academic thesis on the show's racism might be summarized as: They do it to satirize racism itself. South Park creates the stereotypical caricatures to lambaste antiquated beliefs.
For another example: Tropic Thunder has Robert Downey Jr in Black face throughout nearly the entirety of the film. Granted, his character was in black face, but does that make it more okay? Normally, it wouldn't, but when you discuss this film, the blackface is cited as a satricial device, which it completely is.
The long point that I am trying to make here is that all of these examples are considered alright because they are being done with academic purpose. Lovecraft wasn't. Racist. The actress who dressed up just wanted to go as her favorite character. Racist. How I Met Your Mother was making an homage. Racist.
The big dividing line in our society seems to lie in if the racism was done with academic intent.Thus, the question now becomes, why does that make it okay? And that's a question I don't have an answer to, but I am hoping you do.
-
@Monkey:
There's pretty much zero reason to think the UK and especially Australia would be different than the US on this. Let alone Japan.
I consider each one different, as the racism derived differs from each country, and on different levels. This includes how each countries media could implement them.
History has dictated how each one is effected, and no one country, or its history is the same.
You'd be surprised just how different England and Australia are on this topic.
-
I consider each one different, as the racism derived differs from each country, and on different levels. This includes how each countries media could implement them.
And I would argue that when you get down to it, racisms across the board are basically the same song and dance played endlessly over and over throughout history with new players, extremes or lows, and other such things that don't erase the same same fundamental human thing.
To some extent I've always disagreed with an over-obsession with "structural racism", which may bring me into conflict with Holy, CCC, Dark Falcon and maybe everyone else entirely.
But I really think it's born in you to be tribal.
And it's on each person to face that.Of course tons of people make up a structure at the end of the day.
TLDR: Bullshit lol.
-
Now this i like. Bunch of people nodding in, and not one of them is entirely of the same opinion as the other.
Just say no to group based trench warfare kids
-
Now this i like. Bunch of people nodding in, and not one of them is entirely of the same opinion as the other.
Just say no to group based trench warfare kids
I agree that it should be a discussion yes.
-
@Monkey:
And I would argue that when you get down to it, racisms across the board are basically the same song and dance played endlessly over and over throughout history with new players, extremes or lows, and other such things that don't erase the same same fundamental human thing.
To some extent I've always disagreed with an over-obsession with "structural racism", which may bring me into conflict with Holy, CCC, Dark Falcon and maybe everyone else entirely.
But I really think it's born in you to be tribal.
And it's on each person to face that.Here I share your sentiments rather closely, so you're not exactly alone in that way of thinking, though getting into tribal behavior like this would open up a whole other can of worms.
-
@Monkey:
I agree that it should be a discussion yes.
lol i suppose that's exactly what it is.
Controversial subjects do, usually, conjure up the picture of British parliment in my mind.
With group A booing everything group B says indiscriminately and vice versa.
-
lol i suppose that's exactly what it is.
Controversial subjects do, usually, conjure up the picture of British parliment in my mind.
With group A booing everything group B says indiscriminately and vice versa.
Boooooooooooooo.
Boo, wolfwood. Boo.
-
I agree with Nex's platform. A green star just wouldn't understand.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Nex:
Going back to South Park, an academic thesis on the show's racism might be summarized as: They do it to satirize racism itself. South Park creates the stereotypical caricatures to lambaste antiquated beliefs.
Here's a wrench to fuck up your thesis.
South Park is in fact highly problematic, subjectively unfunny and definitely does a lot of unacceptable things that hide behind the meaningless veil of "satire", which has become the cowardly comedian's way of of justifying themselves. So here's a newsflash: satire is dead. Satirical humor that is supported by the very foundations it pretends it is dismantling is not in fact satire, or smart.
Young dumb straight dudes thinking they have any right to "satire" trans people, who have no representation whatsoever in media other than as jokes to be laughed at. Sure is real "progressive" of South Park to be mean spirited and support the status quo. Even on something topical to this, like: have a Chinese character who says "shitty" instead of "city" because hey he's a dumb Chinaman who can't say words good! That sure is showing it to uh… All those Asians who aren't in TV anyways. Like I mean, do fill me in on this hella clever and smartly written racist character. The one black kid is a ... token one? He's named Token? You say they are satirizing the very idea of racism itself? My goodness! How very original. This is not at all provided by a belief system that young white men are railraoded into because media revolves around them and they have the freedom to be babies.
South Park is part of the problem and is not a takedown of the problem.
Also to freak you out and confuse you if you still don't get it, I'd like to add that Tropic Thunder's joke about blackface is not comparable to South Park. It was actually a joke about acting.
-
This post is deleted!
-
Sorry, picking and choosing because I'm really bad at the quote-every-bit-of-the-last-reply thing.
But doesn't this in itself become redundant if we all share a portion of the stereotyping going on?
The portions are decidedly unequal and some groups' portions include historical oppression that continues to this day, though. On the topic of "racism is racism is racism," well, not exactly. I can decide to get offended if someone says white people can't dance, but that doesn't change the fact that as a straight white male I am as privileged as I can possibly be in America (well, almost. I'm not Christian), so I'm still laughing all the way to the bank. And that does change things. The jokes lose their power when they're not backed up by societal reality.
But we are reaching a point where its almost time to bury that in the past.
Yeah, not really. I admittedly don't know much about stuff across the pond, but saying "racism is [almost] over" in America will get you just as many decriers as supporters. We've come a long way since the Civil Rights Act, but there's still ridiculous shit like active, malicious disenfranchisement of minority voters, enabled by a conservative supreme court that couldn't give two shits about the integrity of that very Civil Rights Act, and carried out by the same, traditionally racist states that had the privilege to enact special voting laws without scrutiny revoked decades ago for that very reason. Race relations are still a major issue, and while I can't say that tensions are "higher than ever," those tensions aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
The double standard is applied to everyone though. My only real gripe is just the fact that it is so overly complicated.
I feel like people overthink this (like the guy who wrote that comic). It's pretty simple. You avoid obvious trouble words (nigger, spic, gook, faggot, etc.), and if in the course of your day someone comments on a less immediately obvious term you've used, claiming that it's offensive, you either a) say "oh I wasn't aware. sorry. I'll be more careful" or, b) say "pfft. what do you know?" and wait for a member of the race you're referencing to actually get offended in your presence, at which point you either go with option a) or just decide that you don't care about hurting them. Questioning the semantics and "logic" just seems like a roundabout way of trying to invalidate the feelings of people who are actually offended. Language is always context relative, and we can't expect some clean set of rules to govern it when society's values and the words themselves are constantly shifting. Just be humble and adaptable and try not to hurt people. (I feel like I've probably told this story before, but… during college, one of my friends told the rest of our group that she really wasn't comfortable with us using "retard" to mean "stupid" because she has a mentally retarded cousin and the issue was close to her heart. I got super defensive at first and, I'm embarrassed to admit it, made light of her complaint, but I started to think about it, and I haven't used retard pejoratively since then. It just wasn't a big deal to cut that out of my vocabulary if it meant that I might avoid upsetting people in the future).
Your viewpoint sounds like its along the lines of "racism is racism, and just as bad no matter on what level it is produced". Which in my eyes is like me calling someone an 'idiot', or calling them a 'cunt'. Two completely different levels of intent that should be treated differently…..otherwise you have a blanket view on the subject.
Okay. Traditional KKK > Westboro Baptist > Modern KKK > Pat Robertson > blackface > stormfront member > Phil Robertson > 4chan member > George W. Bush > Joe the Plumber > That episode of HIMYM > us > Mother Teresa > Gandhi > newborn baby.
But what does that really accomplish? I promise you I don't have a blanket view. KKK wins every time. That's not my argument though. I'm saying that on that cute little scale, the reeeeally problematic thing is the one that's closest to "us," because it's the most pervasive and the best at avoiding scrutiny. I do treat those things differently, based on how much threat they actually pose (or at least how indicative they are of bigger problems), which is not really reflected by that ordering.Thanks for the response though. Its given me a better insight into this side of the debate.
No problem. Glad to do it.
@Panda:
but rather an observation that talking past each other achieves nothing.
I guess I don't understand why this idea keeps coming up. Who exactly is talking past each other here? We're all intelligent enough to read each other's viewpoints/definitions/opinions and consider them. Again, completely different story if I were to stand on a street corner and start trying to preach to passersby, which would admittedly seem like a mostly wasted effort.
@Monkey:
To some extent I've always disagreed with an over-obsession with "structural racism"
But I really think it's born in you to be tribal.
And it's on each person to face that.So you would argue that any apparently structural manifestations are mostly driven by the innate, individual, almost biological side of things, and not by the happenstance of historical events? That sounds pretty fair, honestly. It seems to bring us to the same endpoint no matter what, though, which is the reality of "it's on each person to face that." …I guess I think that we can extend the facing of it to a desire to actually affect structural change and not just be content with knowing that we, ourselves, as individuals aren't part of the "problem."
Although in light of that idea, maybe newborn baby should move up past Gandhi on the racism scale ;)
@Holy:
This is not at all provided by a belief system that young white men are railraoded into because media revolves around them and they have the freedom to be babies.
If I admit that I'm a baby, will you marry me?
<3 -
@CCC:
I guess I don't understand why this idea keeps coming up. Who exactly is talking past each other here? We're all intelligent enough to read each other's viewpoints/definitions/opinions and consider them. Again, completely different story if I were to stand on a street corner and start trying to preach to passersby, which would admittedly seem like a mostly wasted effort.
I can't speak for Panda but to me it's just me looking at it as a general problem to be solved.
An argument is made, using wording and jargong that confuses people not in the loop
A side argument starts up, that drives atleast Holy crazy because it takes the discussion in the wrong direction.
Looking at it the solution would seem obvious. Fix the faulty communication and the problem disappears.
And on a seperate note i'll have to say that i laugh my ass of at both South Park and the Boondocks. Both which i would assume are deemed hugely racist. Heck Uncle Ruckus alone is so racist that he goes straight into the bizare.
But as i've said before there's few things i feel can't be dealt with using humor.
-
I can't speak for Panda but to me it's just me looking at it as a general problem to be solved.
An argument is made, using wording and jargong that confuses people not in the loop
A side argument starts up, that drives atleast Holy crazy because it takes the discussion in the wrong direction.
Ohhh so you do mean in the context of even this forum topic. Gotcha.
I honestly didn't realize that any in-loop jargon was even being used, but I'll definitely try to be more conscious about that in the future, if it'll help things run more smoothly. Good communication is the goal, for sure.